Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[tonyrey]

You are leaving self

I’m simply rephrasing your statements:

Freewill is not random. An efficient cause does not have to be deterministic.

It’s good to see you in action!

 

[Kismetji]

What exactly is self-determinism? And how is a self-determined will not… determined?

To me this looks like a violation of the law of the excluded middle: either free will is indeterminate and can, in principle, probabilistically figure as a number of different outcomes, or the nature of the agent dictates the outcome, in which case we are not free, because our characters, mental-states and so on, have already come to a conclusion in advance.

To me the only real free will must be libertarian free will. How does your thinking preserve that?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First, there is the ontological being lacking what it will possess at the end of the process. So that’s one. Then there is the process-in-process, some which we can actually view, or at least measure, as they proceed along. That’s two. And, three, is the end, or final effect, or the ontological being now possessing that which earlier it did not possess. E.G., the newly hatched baby bird is without feathers. Then, small spikes begin to appear on its skin. And, finally, voilà!, feathers. (I know there’s more to it than that, but describing the entire process is irrelevant.)

jd

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut JDaniel.

 

[greylorn]

What exactly is self-determinism? And how is a self-determined will not… determined?

To me this looks like a violation of the law of the excluded middle: either free will is indeterminate and can, in principle, probabilistically figure as a number of different outcomes, or the nature of the agent dictates the outcome, in which case we are not free, because our characters, mental-states and so on, have already come to a conclusion in advance.

To me the only real free will must be libertarian free will. How does your thinking preserve that?

Gee! A non-entirely-conventional participant. Cool.

The only way that an entity can be truly self-determinant is if it is inherently capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Wikipedia can be helpful if you’ve not taken a basic physics class. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics It could be equally helpful to many of the posters here who claim know some physics, except that they choose to believe that none of these laws apply to their beliefs.

For them, the stuff written or invented by men and declared by other men who never met God that the invented words are the true words of God, takes precedence over a universe actually and certainly engineered by God. Alas…

One effect of the principle of thermodynamic independence is that a created entity cannot be thermodynamically deterministic. Thus either the soul was not created, or the soul does not have free will.

 

[tonyrey]

The only way that an entity can be truly self-determinant is if it is inherently capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Kismetji]

Gee! A non-entirely-conventional participant. Cool.

The only way that an entity can be truly self-determinant is if it is inherently capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Wikipedia can be helpful if you’ve not taken a basic physics class. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics It could be equally helpful to many of the posters here who claim know some physics, except that they choose to believe that none of these laws apply to their beliefs.

For them, the stuff written or invented by men and declared by other men who never met God that the invented words are the true words of God, takes precedence over a universe actually and certainly engineered by God. Alas…

One effect of the principle of thermodynamic independence is that a created entity cannot be thermodynamically deterministic. Thus either the soul was not created, or the soul does not have free will.

This is one more reason I believe in the pre-existence of the soul. Thanks.

There is only one Will - the will of Freedom itself. And all else that happens is a mirror image of that one Freedom.

 

[tdgesq]

Obviously, then, this law of efficient causality doesn’t take into account the empirical observation of quantum randomness. What causes radioactive decay, for example? What causes particles to pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum?

The notion that quantum fluctuations come into existence spontaneously from the vacuum, does not entail that they came into existence without a cause. There are certain necessary conditions that must be in place before there can be any such existence. Indeterminacy is not the same thing as the absence of cause, even if does point to the absence of a full explanation of sufficient cause (assuming no hidden variables).

The relatively young science of quantum mechanics is, by its very nature, limited to the observation of effects (we cannot see quantum particles) and is further limited by testing conditions (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). What we do know is that space-time and a vacuum are necessary conditions for quantum fluctuations. What we also know is that every other observable phenomenon in the universe has a cause. What we also know is that science is in the very business of investigating causes, without which there would be no science. If we truly believe in the power of science (I do), we also believe that it will one day adequately explain the sufficient cause of certain quantum fluctuations.

 

[JDaniel]

This is one more reason I believe in the pre-existence of the soul.

Kismetji:

The idea of “pre-existence” is just about the most egregious conclusion that any person can come to. It defines a state of complete and utter contradiction. What could “pre-existence” possibly be like?

Unless, as it is for Catholics, the imperfect existences of Matter and Form: their state before their union. But, in that sense, we don’t pre-exist. Only our undifferentiated matter and differentiating form do, neither being who or what we are.

On the other hand, if one believes in reincarnation, then anything is possible. Except “thinking!”

There is only one Will - the will of Freedom itself. And all else that happens is a mirror image of that one Freedom.

But this is completely contradictory as well. We KNOW that we will. We KNOW that our choices do not come to us out of the blue, without deliberation. We KNOW we are human and that we are far from perfect beings. Not only do we err, but we can also make choices deliberately against our will, in full knowledge of how we ought to proceed.

If we were to build a wall, from the North Pole to the South Pole and back again, around the Earth, we can walk freely anywhere we want - on one side of the Earth. Analogically, that is our limitation. No matter-soul creature has absolute freedom.

Further, absolute freedom would seem to permit suicide: I don’t like this life, so I’ll just try the next one: shopping for a life! (A great idea for a new TV show!)

God bless,
jd

 

[Kismetji]

Kismetji:

The idea of “pre-existence” is just about the most egregious conclusion that any person can come to. It defines a state of complete and utter contradiction. What could “pre-existence” possibly be like?

Your not knowing does not preclude it. Now, that’s something egregious.

Unless, as it is for Catholics, the imperfect existences of Matter and Form: their state before their union. But, in that sense, we don’t pre-exist. Only our undifferentiated matter and differentiating form do, neither being who or what we are.

We are not, never were, and never will be Matter. We are not some composite of matter and spirit. We are spirit.

On the other hand, if one believes in reincarnation, then anything is possible. Except “thinking!”

If you have a problem with reincarnation, we can go ahead and talk about it. Notice though, do I go around saying Christians cease from “thinking” when I disagree with one of their doctrines? That, say, Jesus can both be fully man and fully God, or that God could make something “out of nothing” or that God is “pure act” or some other such nonsense?

With all due respect, I think you should lean some manners mister.

But this is completely contradictory as well. We KNOW that we will. We KNOW that our choices do not come to us out of the blue, without deliberation.

All my life I have wondered about why I am the way I am and why I choose the things I do. It’s only recently that I have managed to at least try to live my life ‘rationally.’ Your blindly asserting that everyone thinks the same as you do is mere presumption and bigotry, no more.

We KNOW we are human and that we are far from perfect beings. Not only do we err, but we can also make choices deliberately against our will, in full knowledge of how we ought to proceed.

I don’t think so. Well, maybe in some qualified senses. You are making a complex topic far too simple. Believe me, I have thought long and hard on these matters and I’m not even kidding.

If we were to build a wall, from the North Pole to the South Pole and back again, around the Earth, we can walk freely anywhere we want - on one side of the Earth. Analogically, that is our limitation. No matter-soul creature has absolute freedom.

That’s because we’re trapped in matter.

Further, absolute freedom would seem to permit suicide: I don’t like this life, so I’ll just try the next one: shopping for a life! (A great idea for a new TV show!)
God bless,
jd

Huh? Suicide is wrong regardless what one might freely will. One has to take into account the circumstances relative to ethical actions, in my opinion.

 

[nonanon]

Gee! A non-entirely-conventional participant. Cool.

The only way that an entity can be truly self-determinant is if it is inherently capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I don’t see the necessity of this, nor the problem. Lord Kelvin himself thought that the second law didn’t describe organisms.

 

[greylorn]

Why must every being be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

You can read words, but seem incapable of understanding their meaning. I’ve been down that tiresome road with you before, and am ready to be done with it. Do you ever critically evaluate what you read, or do you always (as in my experience) just react mindlessly according to your beliefs?

An entity which can violate the 2nd Law is not subject to the 2nd Law.

Only a physicalist would make that assumption…

“Physicalist” is an apparently made-up word. Good for you, showing imagination. Nonetheless, when trying to insult or label someone it is best to stick with well defined words which they are likely to understand. A good place to start is to use words with which you have a more experience-related relationship, such as “pinhead,” “nincompoop,” or the once popular but less modern, “ignoramus.”

 

[greylorn]

I don’t see the necessity of this, nor the problem. Lord Kelvin himself thought that the second law didn’t describe organisms.

Great minds make errors too. Perhaps he made that one back when his name was William Thomson.

 

[nonanon]

Great minds make errors too. Perhaps he made that one back when his name was William Thomson.

I suppose it must have been sometime after he co-invented the law.

Why do you think it’s necessary to violate it? The second law only applies to certain systems, and doesn’t exclude entropy decreases generally.

 

[greylorn]

This is one more reason I believe in the pre-existence of the soul. Thanks.

You’re welcome. I’m always happy to contribute to alternative thinking.

I’m also fond of critical thinking, which leads to another question. What exactly is “the soul,” by your understanding? Specifically, what are its properties?

There is only one Will - the will of Freedom itself. And all else that happens is a mirror image of that one Freedom.

Here you’ve gone fuzzy on me. I’ve no clue as to what you are talking about, and this comment sounds, frankly, like utter nonsense. “Freedom” is a state or condition, not something I would associate with having a “will,” which means, roughly, the power to decide upon, choose, and pursue a course of action.

Your final sentence is, to me, meaningless verbal gobbledegook. Do not take that personally, unless you really expect others to extract meaningful concepts from that sentence.

You’ve quickly gone from interesting to potential crank, IMO, and might want to rectify that. If there are some interesting and coherent concepts behind those statements, they need to be presented first.

 

[Kismetji]

You’re welcome. I’m always happy to contribute to alternative thinking.

I’m also fond of critical thinking, which leads to another question. What exactly is “the soul,” by your understanding? Specifically, what are its properties?

What is existence, in your view? Can anyone define “being” or is it what we all presuppose in our defining anything? I am that I am, tis all.

Here you’ve gone fuzzy on me. I’ve no clue as to what you are talking about, and this comment sounds, frankly, like utter nonsense. “Freedom” is a state or condition, not something I would associate with having a “will,” which means, roughly, the power to decide upon, choose, and pursue a course of action.

Your final sentence is, to me, meaningless verbal gobbledegook. Do not take that personally, unless you really expect others to extract meaningful concepts from that sentence.

You’ve quickly gone from interesting to potential crank, IMO, and might want to rectify that. If there are some interesting and coherent concepts behind those statements, they need to be presented first.

You will soon find out that I have absolutely no care what other people think of me (what to say of an internet message board!). However, to finish off my crank gobbledygook, I will say that Freedom is in some ways an objective state of Sheer Pure Indeterminacy from which the ALL of opposites flows therefrom.

 

[Blinky]

You can read words, but seem incapable of understanding their meaning. I’ve been down that tiresome road with you before, and am ready to be done with it. Do you ever critically evaluate what you read, or do you always (as in my experience) just react mindlessly according to your beliefs?

An entity which can violate the 2nd Law is not subject to the 2nd Law.

“Physicalist” is an apparently made-up word. Good for you, showing imagination. Nonetheless, when trying to insult or label someone it is best to stick with well defined words which they are likely to understand. A good place to start is to use words with which you have a more experience-related relationship, such as “pinhead,” “nincompoop,” or the once popular but less modern, “ignoramus.”

“Physicalist” is indeed a real word. Look it up.

 

[greylorn]

I suppose it must have been sometime after he co-invented the law.

Could be, but who knows? The Laws of Thermodynamics have several interesting implications which to the best of my understanding have not been explored well by conventional physics. I do that kind of thing in my book, trying to relate a generalized version of these laws into an alternative interpretation of the beginnings of the universe which assumes that the initial condition was entropy one, rather than entropy zero.

The only officially real physicist I know of who has explored the metaphysical implications of these laws is James Maxwell, with his “daemon,” which I read as a “soul concept,” well concealed to keep him out of trouble with religious zealots.

Why do you think it’s necessary to violate it? The second law only applies to certain systems, and doesn’t exclude entropy decreases generally.

This is an excellent question which could only have been asked by someone who has studied physics. The aforementioned (and so far unpublished) book I mentioned earlier is written around an answer to that question.

A quickie answer— from your perspective, there is no necessity to violate it. From mine, the notion of entropy-violation is part of an extensive alternative explanation for the origin of a universe which, as I mentioned earlier, starts off at entropy one (and 0 degrees Kelvin).

 

[greylorn]

“Physicalist” is indeed a real word. Look it up.

I did, and you are correct. I owe whoever I complained to about it an apology, and hope he picks it up here so that I don’t have to bend over twice.

However, I do not feel bad about my error, and shall forgive myself for it. At the top of Wikipedia’s long, tiresome, and vague dissertation about physicalism is this disclaimer:
*This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia’s quality standards, as the article is too long, poorly written (with unclear examples), and severely lacking sources… *

As it turns out, the word is not a word I would normally bother to use, inasmuch as the philosophers who utilize it seem to be greatly confused by it and unable to clarify their confusion.

I do not have much truck with philosophers, regarding them as a useless bunch of pedantic pinheads who think that they can understand things about the universe without knowing any physics. When already-confused philosophers are confused about a concept, I want no part of it.

As best I can tell from what seems to pass among those fools for a definition, some of them would think that I am a physicalist and others would not. The rest of them are reading comic books and don’t don’t know what physicalist means either, much less care what category my opinions fit into.

From all this, the only certainty is that I am not a physicalist, would not know what that meant even if I was, and do not care much for what run-of-the-litter philosophers or their hind-teat camp followers “think.”

 

[greylorn]

The notion that quantum fluctuations come into existence spontaneously from the vacuum, does not entail that they came into existence without a cause. There are certain necessary conditions that must be in place before there can be any such existence. Indeterminacy is not the same thing as the absence of cause, even if does point to the absence of a full explanation of sufficient cause (assuming no hidden variables).

The relatively young science of quantum mechanics is, by its very nature, limited to the observation of effects (we cannot see quantum particles) and is further limited by testing conditions (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). What we do know is that space-time and a vacuum are necessary conditions for quantum fluctuations. What we also know is that every other observable phenomenon in the universe has a cause. What we also know is that science is in the very business of investigating causes, without which there would be no science. If we truly believe in the power of science (I do), we also believe that it will one day adequately explain the sufficient cause of certain quantum fluctuations.

Well put, and IMO right on.

 

[greylorn]

What is existence, in your view? Can anyone define “being” or is it what we all presuppose in our defining anything? I am that I am, tis all.

You will soon find out that I have absolutely no care what other people think of me (what to say of an internet message board!). However, to finish off my crank gobbledygook, I will say that Freedom is in some ways an objective state of Sheer Pure Indeterminacy from which the ALL of opposites flows therefrom.

Flowery words and zen-like sentences leave me pretty cold. They are the signature of nitwits and know-nothings. (Don’t take that personally. I’m sure that you know everything. I was writing about the other guys.) Reading your writings is worse than listening to Nancy Pelosi-- I hate to say it, but she makes more sense. IMO of course.

Sorry to have disturbed the slumber of mystic beliefs within which you seem to sleep comfortably. Perhaps a thread which has nothing whatsoever to do with physics would be more to your taste? Please, find such a thread.